Morrill v. Maine Turnpike Authority
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
. . *. . ,. - ..; .: ,., L i: . EUPERIOR COURT .. W I L ACTION ~. * . . . '.- . ,.: : . . - ! . r . .. . -, , STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss'. 1 ' ,. - ! : 7. .: i . . : ; , ... ? . ,-~ :~ -I;-- - f i NO. AP-05-097 ~m~ / , GEORGE MORRIL-IL Plaintiff v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS MAINE TURNPIKEI AUTHORITY Defendant BEFORE THE COURT Before the court is defendant Maine Turnpike Authority's ("MTA") motion t~ dismiss plaintiff George Morri!l's ("PIaintiff") complaint for mandamus and injunctive relief. BACKGROUND On or about June 30, 2005, MTA took approximately 5 acres of Plaintiffs land in Gray, Maine by condemnation, pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 154. Plaintiff rejected MTA's offer of compensation, and requested by letter, dated August 23, 2005, that the MTA refer the matter to the State Claims Commission ("Commission") for assessment of the damage pursuant to 23 M.R.S.A. § 155. T h s section states: The department shall have 60 days from the date of tahng withn which to negotiate with the owner or owners of record for an agreement as to the amount of just compensation. If w i t h n that time the owner rejects the State's offer of just compensation, such owner may apply to the department and have the matter referred to the State Claims Commission for assessment of the damage. If, at the expiration of that time, no such agreement for just 1 / compensation has been made, the department shall immediately file a petition with the State Claims Commission setting forth the pertinent facts including the names and addresses of the owner or owners of record and the holders of any mortgages, tax liens or other encumbrances, a copy of the notice of condemnation, the statement of the department and a plan of the property involved as served upon the owner or owners of record in accordance with section 154 and requesting a hearing and an award of just compensation. On October 31, 2005, Plaintiff sent another letter to the MTA, stating that he had not heard from them regarding its referral of the just compensation matter to the Commission. On November 3, 2005, the MTA responded by letter, stating "we will be referring this matter to the State Claims Commission as you requested." Not having receivied notice of a referral to the Commission, Plaintiff served a Superior Court summons and complaint upon the MTA, sometime between December 5 and December 20, 2005. Apparently in i?SpGnSe to Plaintiff's summons and complaint, the MTA did then file a petition with the Commission on December 23, 21005. On the same day, December 23, Plaintiff filed the 80C action with t h s court. DISCUSSION The MTA now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's 80C complaint on two grounds, that (1)it is moot, and (2) the court lacks jurisdiction to act on it. The MTA also asserts that this court should not award Plaintiff attorneys' fees in t h s action because it is for the Commission, or the court on appeal, to award such fees, not this court. Plaintiff responds that the MTA ignored its statutory duty to file a petition w with the Commissior~ i h n 60 days after the taking, and only filed such petition after Plaintiff had initiated proceedings against it in Superior Court, six months 2 rather than sixty days after the taking. Plaintiff no longer requests mandamus or injunctive relief Arom the court, but requests the court to retain jurisdiction to impose sanctions on the MTA, including an award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff for bringing t h s acticn. Plai~~tiff asserts th2t the cotlrt h2s equitabie jurisdiction to retain the case for this limited purpose, which jurisdiction was invoked by Plaintiff's prior inadequate remedy at law, during the period in w h c h the MTA refused to comply with its statutory duty. 23 M.R.S.A. § 157 allows for an award of attorneys' fees only if the MTA appeals a Commission award to the Superior Court and loses on appeal. See McTeague v. Department of Transportation, 2000 ME 183, ¶ 13, 760 A.2d 619, 622. There does not-appear to be any authority for granting attorneys' fees in this situation. However, as Plaintiff obtained the relief prayed for in t h s appeal, he is the prevailing party, and consequently he is entitled to the costs of filing this action. The entry is: Defendants' imotion to dismiss is GRANTED, as the appeal is moot. Costs are awarded to the Plaintiff. Dated at Portland, Maine this /f 4day of&-,! P ,2006. rt E. Crowley Justice, Superior court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
